Reading Part 4: two writers, one number, different doubts
You are in PEIC Level 4 Reading, Part 4 (multiple matching). Two short extracts comment on a city's year-old congestion charge, and you must match eight statements to text A, text B or both. Extract A, from a shopkeepers' association spokesperson: 'Takings on the main street fell 8% in the first three months, and yes, that number is real. But our members' delivery and online orders rose 12% over the same period, so the headline figure tells you less than it seems to.' Extract B, from a transport economist: 'The 8% is a seasonal artefact - the comparison should be year on year, and on that basis the change is negligible. The scheme's real test is bus reliability: journey times on two trunk routes are down 11 minutes, though I would want a full year of data before calling that a success.' Statement 6 reads: 'Questions whether the headline figure reflects the scheme's actual effect.' Two statements look plausible for both texts. You have 12 minutes left for this part.
1. Which text or texts does statement 6 match, and why?
Read the worked answer
Both. Neither writer disputes the 8% itself - that is the trap. Both dispute what it means.
Text A: 'the headline figure tells you less than it seems to' concedes the number ('yes, that number is real') and then limits its significance by pointing to a 12% rise in delivery and online orders. That is exactly 'questions whether the headline figure reflects actual effect'.
Text B: 'seasonal artefact' and 'the comparison should be year on year' do the same job by a different route - the figure is real but measures the wrong thing.
The reasoning skill is paraphrase matching: statement 6 uses none of the source vocabulary ('headline figure', 'actual effect') and both texts avoid the word 'question'. Match on the proposition, not on shared words, and check the scope of the doubt. B's closing hedge ('though I would want a full year') limits B's confidence in the bus data; it does not withdraw the criticism of the 8% figure, so it does not remove B from statement 6.
2. Which writer is more positive about the scheme's transport effects, and how confident should you be?
Read the worked answer
Text B, but only in a qualified way - and the qualification is the point of the item.
Only B discusses transport at all: journey times on two trunk routes are down 11 minutes. A discusses retail takings and online orders; A says nothing about buses, so A cannot be the answer to a question about transport effects, however positive A's tone is about trade.
B's positivity is hedged twice: 'though I would want a full year of data' and 'before calling that a success'. So B is encouraged but not convinced - an answer option phrased as 'B believes the scheme has succeeded' would be wrong, while 'B sees promising evidence but withholds judgement' would be right.
C1 reading items reward this precision. Separate three things: the topic a writer addresses, the direction of the claim, and the strength of the modal or qualifier attached to it. Most wrong options in multiple matching get the direction right and the strength wrong.
3. State a procedure for handling statements containing hedges such as 'questions whether', 'doubts that' or 'is convinced that'.
Read the worked answer
- Reduce the statement to a proposition plus a strength. 'The writer questions whether the charge has reduced traffic' = proposition (traffic reduction) + strength (doubted).
- Locate the proposition in each text, not the statement's vocabulary. Writers rarely reuse the examiner's words; 'seasonal artefact' and 'tells you less than it seems' are both doubt about a figure.
- Check the strength against the source's modals and qualifiers. 'Cannot', 'unlikely', 'would want more data' and 'has failed' are four different positions; the wrong options usually swap one for another.
- Watch for one-sided evidence. A statement can be true of a text that never addresses the topic at all - A cannot comment on bus reliability because A never mentions transport.
- Do not eliminate on tone. A shopkeeper defending members can sound defensive and still be making the same analytical point as an economist.
Budget roughly 90 seconds per statement set and revisit only the ones you marked uncertain.